The George Zimmerman Trial — Page 8

"How do you ignore someone who is sitting on top of you slamming your head into the ground?"

BY STAYING IN YOUR FCUKING CAR WHEN THE AUTHORITIES TOLD YOU TO DO SO.

---

"Some night very soon, if he so chooses, George Zimmerman can load his piece, tuck it into the back of his pants, climb into his SUV, and drive around Sanford, Florida looking for assholes and ****ing punks who are walking through neighborhoods where he, George Zimmerman, defender of law and order, doesn't think they belong. He can drive around Sanford, Florida and check out anyone who is dressed in such a manner as might frighten the average citizen who has been fed a daily diet of "Scary Black Kids" by their local news and by their favorite radio personalities, and who is dressed in such a manner as might seem inappropriate to their surroundings as determined by George Zimmerman, crimebuster....."
Read the entire story here

---

"BY STAYING IN YOUR FCUKING CAR WHEN THE AUTHORITIES TOLD YOU TO DO SO."

When George Zimmerman got out of his car he was not breaking the law, even if the dispatcher told him to stay in his car (which she did not --when Zimmerman said he was trying to follow Trayvon, the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." )

"Trayvon had a right to defend himself against the wannabe cop who was "hunting" him"

That is simply not true. Self defense (according to U.S. law) is the right for civilians acting on their own behalf to engage in a level of violence, called reasonable force or defensive force, for the sake of DEFENDING ONE'S OWN LIFE (or the lives of others). George Zimmerman following Trayvon would not in any way have given Trayvon the right of self defense, as following someone is not putting their life in danger.

The Martin's said in an interview with Phil Keating almost a year ago, that all along thye wanted an arrest, wanted the justice system to run its course, have a jury decide and whatever that decision was they would live with that.

Sounds like the Martins understand the process of justice better than most people on this board.

If I am so "stupid", then it should be very easy for you to PROVE ME WRONG.

Updated On: 7/14/13 at 06:21 PM

Which "facts" am I ignoring?

For the record, I think in many states Zimmerman would have been convicted, but the quirks in Florida law, the lack of any living victims to the actual crime (other than Zimmerman) and the travesty of the "Stand Your Ground" law made this a challenging case for the prosecution. "Not Guilty" does not mean "Innocent".

I think Zimmerman is guilty of instigating an incident that he could have easily defused had he made a multiple of different choices. The facts is that generally under Florida law, he did not have to.

The real perpetrator, other than Zimmerman, is ALEC, and the institutionalized GOP advocacy groups that push many of the laws that turn presumptions (like the obligation to retreat if available, before using deadly force) on their heads.

Zimmerman may have pulled the trigger, but ALEC loaded that gun and sent him out into to his neighborhood with it.

Morally, I am as outraged as anyone. I am disgusted that a man's personal bias and prejudice was able to justify the taking of this young life. Believe me. But legally, I can understand the verdict because of the crappy laws on the books and the crappy police work done after the fact. What Zimmerman should have done as a decent human being was not what he had to do legally as a resident of Florida.

Civilly, it may be a different story. That may not provide much solace for the family.

You want to fight for Martin, work to help destroy ALEC, and organizations that supports its lobbying efforts. The Stand Your Ground laws have resulted in a 3 fold increase in a finding of justifiable homicides in Florida. Without ALEC and the "Stand Your Ground" law, things may have been very different.

"MIkey, it's true that Trayvon Martin would not have the right to punch George Zimmerman or cause him injury merely on the grounds that Zimmerman was following him."

Actually with those "castle" laws, he would have legally been able to defend himself with force due to where it took place on the property.

Oh fer crap's sake, Mikey.

---

"Some of us are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor"

Yet the evidence does not support that conclusion. Even Martin's female friend, who he was on the phone with at the time, testified that it was Trayvon that confronted Zimmerman.

"that it was Trayvon Martin crying out for help"

Again, this flies in the face of the evidence. The only other eyewitness to the incident testified that he believed it was the person on the bottom (Zimmerman) who was yelling for help. Also, within moments after the shooting , when other neighbors came outside, Zimmerman was quoted as saying, "I was calling for help and no one would help me." Again, that was moments after the shooting. Also, I am sure the jury concluded that it did not make sense for the man on top during a fight to be calling for help.

"even Zimmerman denied it was Zimmerman crying out for help"

I don't recall this. Perhaps you could fill me in on this?

"that immediately after the shot was fired the outcry stopped because the person crying out was the person who was shot."

It is just as easy to conclude that the person who was yelling for help stopped yelling after the shot because the person who had been beating them stopped beating them.

"then Trayvon Martin would still be alive."

There were a lot of steps leading up to the shooting that, once removed from the scenario, might result in Martin being alive today. Unfortunately, all we can do in that regard is speculate. And it is not the job of a jury to speculate.

"why weren't Trayvon Martin's hands examined microscopically for George Zimmerman's blood"

Didn't the prosecution use the lack of blood on Trayvon's hands as evidence that Trayvon could not have been beating Zimmerman?

"the racist decision not to pursue the case"

What evidence is there that the decision was "racist"? And the case was pursued; thus the trial.

Mikey's still upset about Mitt. Some compassion, please. ;P

---

"Yet the evidence does not support that conclusion. Even Martin's female friend, who he was on the phone with at the time, testified that it was Trayvon that confronted Zimmerman."

Just as following something is not illegal aggression, confronting someone as to why they are following you is also not illegal aggression. Neither one of them alone justifies physical injury.

"Actually with those "castle" laws, he would have legally been able to defend himself with force due to where it took place on the property."

One is not able to defend oneself with force merely because one is being followed. If someone is coming up to your home to knock on your door, you don't have the right to assault him; you have the right to stand your ground and not retreat in your own property if someone is physically causing or about to cause you bodily harm. Therefore, the operative "castle" question is not whether Zimmerman was following Martin but whether Martin reasonably feared that he was in imminent peril or serious bodily injury; the defense in Zimmerman understood that and presented the facts as if Zimmerman had done nothing to give Martin that impression; rather that he was merely getting out of his car to check the street he was on. I happen to not find that believable, but that's beside the point when it comes to this particular issue (not beside the point when it comes to whether or not he should have been convicted, but that's another matter).

Updated On: 7/14/13 at 08:46 PM

I am sure I'm just feeding the troll But I'll bite. With the assumption that Henrik backs me up later on..

"Yet the evidence does not support that conclusion. Even Martin's female friend, who he was on the phone with at the time, testified that it was Trayvon that confronted Zimmerman."

So if you believe Rachel Jeantelle's testimony, that also means Zimmerman was in fact "stalking" him and spoke the first words. Most of her testimony goes against what the Defense argues, so are you accepting her testimony or not? You can't have it both ways. Are you just choosing which bits and pieces you'll believe and agree with? That's hardly legal or fair.

"Again, this flies in the face of the evidence. The only other eyewitness to the incident testified that he believed it was the person on the bottom (Zimmerman) who was yelling for help. Also, within moments after the shooting , when other neighbors came outside, Zimmerman was quoted as saying, "I was calling for help and no one would help me." Again, that was moments after the shooting. Also, I am sure the jury concluded that it did not make sense for the man on top during a fight to be calling for help."

So, now you want to use your God given common sense to come to a conclusion? OK then. Isn't that speculation, though? Aren't they speculating that because Zimmerman was on the bottom, he was also the one yelling for "help?" Perhaps Trayvon was yelling for "Help" because he knew he couldn't fend off Zimmerman for too long. How do we really know? Also, I would urge you to reconsider how exactly Zimmerman would have access to his gun if Trayvon's legs are up in Zimmerman's armpits, as he initially stated to his best friend (and then changed it later on for police. of course).

"I don't recall this. Perhaps you could fill me in on this?"

And this is a perfect example of why you shouldn't be arguing for a verdict if you haven't actually followed the trial. Had you followed it, you would know that Zimmerman first told detectives it was not him yelling upon initial review of the phone call recording. Of course, he later recanted that and clarified. How convenient that he changed his mind -- days later he could finally recognize his voice, I guess?

"There were a lot of steps leading up to the shooting that, once removed from the scenario, might result in Martin being alive today. Unfortunately, all we can do in that regard is speculate. And it is not the job of a jury to speculate."

Why would you remove yourself from the scenario? That makes no sense? It's the polar opposite. You must put every decision made and action taken that evening into context and consider the scenario. The scenario being that George Zimmerman should act in no greater capacity than the "eyes and ears" of the local police as Neighborhood Watchman. Once he called 911 and reported the 'suspicious' activity, his job was done. His neighborhood watch training never instructed him to pursue suspicious persons or take any action of his own. Just to report whatever he deemed as suspicious. That's it. You simply cannot argue that fact away. He decided to take things into his own hands and this is what happened; a shooting and a death. He should have stayed in his car. It's that easy to understand.

"What evidence is there that the decision was "racist"? And the case was pursued; thus the trial."

I personally think calling the decision "racist" is a little melodramatic but as I mentioned in a previous post, there would have been no arrest if it weren't for political pressure from the public. The Sanford PD made assumptions and treated Trayvon as a criminal before having all of the evidence or testimony. They never challenged Zimmerman's account of that evening and without that public outcry, the arrest (and trial) would have never happened. If you followed a shred of news during that time, you know that.

Out of respect for those on this thread and the family of Trayvon Martin, I ask that you please stop talking out of your ass and only discuss what you actually know. This conversation reveals how little you know about the case.

jv, I actually find it more offensive when people try to derail or sabotage a meaningful discussion by completely talking out of their ass. Who are they fooling?